I blog, therefore I am?

Steve Rubel is SVP, Director of Insights for Edelman Digital, and a social media and marketing thought leader.  I respect him tremendously.  But when interviewed recently by Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson on their podcast For Immediate Release, he said something that disturbed me profoundly.  He mentioned that he had given up his standard blog and was now only micro-blogging.  The reason, he said, was that people no longer have the time to read.

He’s wrong.  It’s not that people no longer have the time to read.  It’s that they no longer have the desire to read.  Because they don’t think it’s important.  That’s disturbing.

But what’s even more disturbing is the apparent readiness of thought leaders in social media to accept this fact and by words and deeds to further encourage it.  When instead they should be leading the discussion that this is something we should perhaps be concerned about.

Why be concerned?

Because ideas, analysis and opinion usually require more than 140 characters.  Because a successful society needs a citizenry that can think, and evaluate the validity of an argument.  I’m not saying that every member of the population needs to make The Journal of Foreign Affairs his or her favorite Sunday afternoon reading.  But I do think the greater the number of people who are at least capable of reading an article in The New York Times from start to finish, without becoming confused or disinterested, the better it will be for our country and the world in general.

Democratization of the creation and distribution of information is great, but what good is it if we’re creating a generation of information consumers that is intellectually incapable of separating the informational wheat from the chaff?

Unfortunately, by word and deed, there’s much that goes on in the web 2.0 world that I’m concerned may be breeding a generation of dummies.

Words and deeds that bother me

Our infatuation with all things visual vs. written word

Don’t get me wrong.  I love YouTube as much as the next man. But although pictures may speak louder than words, they don’t necessarily speak more intelligently.  My concern has less to do with video itself – after all, there is fantastic video content on TED Talks – but that so much video favors the superficial, the snackable. With people becoming seduced by the endless amount superficial, snackable video out there, they are developing an appetite for content, and only for content, that is the intellectual equivalent of cotton candy.  And soon their systems won’t be capable of digesting anything else.  The philosopher said Cogito ergo sum — I think, therefore I am,  not I snack, therefore I am.

I also believe, though I have no scientific evidence to prove it, that there is a greater depth of involvement with information when we take the time and apply the concentration required to read something.  We also may stop, and ponder a paragraph, before reading further, which we’re less likely to do when watching video.

Our obsession with churning out content – twitter posts, blog posts, comments – for the sake of our Google juice

Does anyone talk about quality vs. quantity anymore?  We’re all suffering from information overload.  But the sad thing is that a good deal of the overload is sifting the garbage from the stuff worth engaging with.  How about posting a little less, and thinking a little more?

Giving in to the lowest common denominator

This is what Steve Rubel has done.  And when a thought leader like Steve does it, it’s doubly concerning.  It’s what the TV network news stations did two decades ago, turning organizations that had formerly helped to inform and intellectually empower a nation into a mirror in which the nation’s most unflattering features were merely reflected.

The dismissal of learning for learning’s sake

Lately I’ve heard buzz among social media “thought leaders” about the worthlessness of a college education.  “Nothing that I learned in college prepared me for what I do to day.”  The first thing I would say to that is, if most of what you’re doing today are the kinds of things I’ve written about above, then that reflects more poorly on you than your college education.

I would agree that there is much I learned in college that is no longer relevant to what I do today.  But the most important things I learned are more relevant than ever.  I learned how to think, I learned the importance of investigating opposing points of view, I learned critical analysis, and I learned to value intellectual integrity.

And as far as the “no longer relevant” things are concerned, that’s beside the point.  College was a time of exploration and discovery, of things I might learn and become, and  things I wouldn’t.  I am thankful that I had that opportunity, an opportunity many never have the privilege to enjoy.

What we can do?

Well for one, we can start talking, as I am in this post.  And encourage further conversation.  The more we talk and discuss, the more this discussion will spread.  And if it even gets one person to start thinking about the importance of getting a complete picture on an issue, reading different points of view about it, or in general just taking the time to read and be exposed to different ideas and perspectives, and thinking critically and thoroughly about stuff – well that’s a good thing.

I wish more of us would resist the temptation to post, post, post – flooding the blogosphere, Twittersphere etc. with endless streams of information, half of it bogus, self-promoting, superficial or simply spam.  Post when you have something useful to say, or found something that you have taken the the time to read and come to a conclusion as to whether it’s really worth spreading or not.  If not, use that time posting for something more worthwhile — like reading.

Break free from you own compulsion to read and follow everything and everyone.  My God, how can you possibly follow more than a few hundred people on Twitter and not feel overwhelmed.  Be selective, be critical, take the time to really read what people are sharing with you and make decisions about which of those people are really worth hearing from.

Keep blogging, and podcasting, not just micro-blogging.  Big ideas, themes and points of view require more than 140 characters.  If all we feed our audiences is the equivalent of intellectual cotton candy, then we are accessories to the crime of turning their minds into mush.

Finally, talk about this.  Share your thoughts with others.  The more people talk about this, the more we can help to create a web 2.0 culture that still values quality of thought and writing, intellectual discipline and integrity, and validation of sources, facts and information.  And to cultivate a web 2.0  community that doesn’t simply surf,  snack and spread, but thinks, analyzes and informs.

Jetzt ist es raus.

Zum 1. Januar 2010 wechsle ich als Head of Digital Germany zu Edelman.

Mehr Infos hier: http://is.gd/57C37

Ich freue mich auf eine neue spannende Aufgabe und bin dankbar für die tollen Jahre mit Weber Shandwick.

Rock’n'Roll!

Right then, so Edelman rejoins the PRCA at the exact same moment that its UK CEO Robert Phillips is appointed to the PRCA board…?

PR Week says:

“Phillips said the agency’s return was due to the member organisation continuing to ‘regain its voice through its leadership team and board’.”

Hmm… so not at all down to your being given a spot on the PRCA board then…?

This is what Phillips had to say:

“Three years ago, I couldn’t see what the PRCA truly offered its members, especially those of us who already invest heavily in areas such as training and development. “

“I also did not believe that the PRCA was best qualified to present a powerful and united voice in and for the industry.”

So in three years he goes from disillusioned to ‘board-certified’? Well… make up your own minds on this one, folks.

Oh, and if you missed the bunch of naked protestors in Edelman’s UK offices on YouTube – here it is again. Just for fun.

A coworker at Ruder Finn mentioned the Creative Career blog to me the other day.  It’s written by Allie, a friend of his at Edelman.  Her blog offers advice to the college student/ recent grad looking for a job in the world of creative communications.  Allie is a relatively new to the public relations world too.  So she understands the mindset of those of us looking for jobs, but also has the perspective of someone who’s been there, done that and survived.  Her recent post, The Art of Proving Yourself in a New Career is worth reading.

I’m in total agreement with everything she says.  I especially like number two “attention to detail comes first.”  She says that “you have to prove that you can get the details right before moving on to the ‘bigger picture’.”  In class all our projects focus on creating plans and campaigns.  No one mentioned that when we first started working we would be sitting around researching technology reporters and Smart Grid bloggers.  But that’s where you have to start if you one day want to get to the point where you’re doing things that are more creative.

Number seven, “learn to prioritize” is also a great point.  When I first got to Ruder Finn, it felt like everyone was giving me different projects and that I would never get them all finished.  Once I learned to do the most important things first and save the routine projects for when I had time, I began to get things done really quickly and was able to take on more and more.

If I could add anything to I’d say that you should get to know as much as you can about the client and the project, even if you’re just told to make a media list.  When I first started working I’d get all these assignments that seemed really random and that I couldn’t put in context.  I think it’s really helpful to research the client and then ask your boss about the work you’re doing for that client.  That way if you get stuck on something you can ask intelligent questions.

There has been a lot of talk lately about buying off bloggers. This murky practice involves individuals being paid by PR agencies and SEO specialists to basically write nice stuff about a client. This in turn creates the illusion of independent third party endorsements, as well as scoring highly on search engines.

For some more background you can read two good posts on this topic by Laurence Borel who spoke out after being offered £70 in exchange for some kind words in her blog, whilst Matt Churchill offers some in-depth analysis on the ethical and sustainability issues surrounding this practice.

Whilst, I too  had a recent approach from a SEO agency that put its motivation more crudely, a lot more crudely, it read ‘the reason that these blog postings are valuable is that, when they are linked to websites, those websites will achieve higher rankings in the search engines. Then those websites will sell more of their service or product. Those websites are willing to pay for your assistance’.

To me this is a black hat, underhand tactic if ever I saw one. Not only is it unethical, but could damage the trust, openness, the raison d’etre of blogging. I can see no difference between this practice and the infamous Edelman/Wal-mart fake blog. Whilst ‘paid for bloggers’  may involve ‘real’ people, I’m under no illusion that this tactic is just as bad as the Edelman/Wal-mart blog fiasco. In both instances there is no disclosure, audiences are being lied to and the blogger is guided on what to say – it is classic astroturfing.

Blogs are SEO friendly so it is not surprising that unscrupulous agencies are trying this tactic. However, I cannot help but feel that companies would be better off either investing in a product or service that people really want to blog about or carrying out some in depth analysis to target bloggers who would be genuinely interested.

This practice has made me question my own motivation to blog…I write SWT as I like to state my views and hopefully stimulate conversation. When someone offers me a story, I think about it, evaluate if it is relevant to the blog and if I can get any mileage out of it. I don’t do it for financial gain.

Whilst, I don’t mind people suggesting a topic, being paid to do so would call my impartiality into question.

TweetLevel is another Twitter measurement tool (or “nifty little service”) that popped up this week courtesy of Edelman – the big PR and communications firm.  The TweetLevel website gives credit to for the tool to @jonnybentwood and @alexparish.

TweetLevel takes a different approach that some of the other tools (Twittergrader, Twinfluence and Twitalyzer) and measures the influence, trust and engagement of Twitter users in addition to their popularity.  The methodology used by TweetLevel is pretty complex and takes in to account a number of other factors as noted in the formula below.

TweetLevel Methodology

However, it seems like the TweetLevel score is heavily influenced by the number of followers as the top TweetLevel scores are produced by celebrities and news sites.  For example, the current top 5 users according to TweetLevel arePerez Hilton, Mashable,  Twitter_Tips, Aplusk and CNNBRK.  Personally, I don’t feel influenced by either Perez or Ashton Kucher but popular culture rules in the online world.

And here is my current TweetLevel score.  I like how they provide more than just the raw score by offering suggestions as to how to improve your score.

Tom Humbarger on TweetLevel

In any case, TweetLevel is worth a visit – just to see how you match up with your favorite Twitterers.

Edelman offers TweetLevel to measure importance of Twitteratis, using a meaningful methodology; http://j.mp/4v8nQA

Yesterday, Edelman launched Twitter’s most recent popularity/influence ranking system – TweetLevel. Now, not only can you see how popular you are, you can also see how influential you are compared with the rest of the Twittersphere…and yes, Perez Hilton is already at the top…above Mashable, might I add. TweetLevel, also allows you to see how ‘trustworthy’ you are, by analysing your re-Tweets. For full details on the algorithms that pretty much explain how this rolls, click here.

Each score is rated out of 100 – in other words, the higher your score, the more important you are. There are four result metrics:

Influence – what you say is interesting and many people listen to it. This is the primary ranking metric.
Popularity – how many people follow you
Engagement – you actively participate within your community
Trust – people believe what you say

Robert Phillips, CEO of Edelman, UK, said: “This may seem like a bit of fun but there is a really serious side to it.

“Too often people think that mere popularity is important but influence and ultimately engagement are what matters.”

Finally, click here for Edelman’s tips on how to up your TweetLevel.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a public hearing regarding the promotion of FDA-regulated products using the Internet and social media tomorrow and Friday that will include presentations from pharmaceutical companies, media companies, agencies and many others.This hearing is a testament to the impact of social media, particularly with regard to its potential within health communications.

Edelman’s Health Engagement Barometer indicates that people want more health engagement – 70 percent of respondents to the survey indicated they agreed with the statement “it is increasingly important that health companies and organizations engage with me.” Additionally, the report goes on to say that 60 percent of adults are engaged and that 75 percent of individuals surveyed agreed with the statement “it is increasingly important that health products and services engage with me.” The report continues by saying that health companies and organizations face a unique opportunity to provide their stakeholders with the engagement they crave. Social media – in addition to traditional communication strategy – is one of the ways these organizations can supply that engagement.

The FDA is going about this the right way. The organization isn’t expected to issue guidelines until about a year after the hearing. I think this will allow ample time to digest the information. However, there could be a downside to this. The Health Engagement Blog (also produced by Edelman employees) included a post on Nov. 10 that posed interesting questions about whether pharmaceutical company engagement could potentially alienate those with medical conditions and proper etiquette  between those companies and their publics (example – if a pharmaceutical company engages someone privately, is that information confidential?). The author goes on to say that pharmaceutical companies should make every effort to be transparent and provide people with information when they seek it, but there should be a line where that engagement ends.

Ignite Health has constructed a Web site dedicated to aggregating information about the FDA hearings at www.fdasm.com. The site does a great job of providing visitors with relevant news coverage of the hearing, a listing of all companies supporting the hearings, a Twitter feed of the #fdasm updates and links to speakers’ presentations.

People need access to medical information, and there are some definite boundaries that must be established regarding health communications. In fact, PhRMA, one of the groups scheduled to attend the FDA hearing, has suggested on its Web site that companies brand their regulated-product tweets, updates and interactions with a defining logo.

I’ll be watching for more information about the hearings tomorrow and will post some thoughts in the near future, but in the meantime, let’s have discussion about the subject? What are your thoughts about health companies and organizations using social media to engage their publics? How do you think social media could enhance health communications, and at the same time, how could it detract from health communications’ effectiveness? What sort of boundaries need to be in place, and what other issues could arise? How can companies take measures to classify their communications – or should there be message classification?

Edelman recently launched the beta version of TweetLevel, a tool to measure an individual’s importance on Twitter.

This tool is still in beta. Even though we believe that it goes a great way to understand and quantify the varying importance of different people’s usage of Twitter, by no means whatsoever do we believe we have fully solved the ‘influence’ problem. What we would appreciate is your views, your feedback, advice and criticism is crucial in helping us understand social media measurement. (TweetLevel’s site)

I tried to measure my influence rating on Twitter, and came up with a very curious result. According to TweetLevel, I (@beradadisini) am more influential than Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt) the founder of WordPress.

I guess TweetLevel still has a long way to go…

Edelman, the world’s largest independent PR agency, just bought the bipartisan digital grassroots advocacy firm Grassroots Enterprise. Beyond some of the top minds in the field, GRE brings its proprietary technology platform called Grassroots Multiplier that gives Edelman the in-house capability to directly connect people with policymakers and Hill folks.

Politico says of the deal: “the acquisition reflects the evolution of public relations from mass communication to direct communication to — and from — consumers and constituents.”

And from Edelman DC’s president, Rob Rehg: “Edelman is thrilled to add the talents of the best digital grassroots advocacy firm in the U.S. This is a great marriage of strengths: Edelman’s industry-leading digital communications and public affairs practices along with Grassroots Enterprise’s award winning team of digital grassroots experts.”

More from the full press release here.

If you have any industry news you want to share, shoot it our way and we’ll post it for you.

I was thinking the other day what would have made my life easier in my final year at university.  Looking back it was a hectic period – amongst all the deadlines, presentations, portfolios and exams we were looking for that dream graduate job. At times it was difficult balancing the two: trying to clear the immediate university workload, whilst attempting to plan for the future, namely searching and applying for jobs (all over the country) in the industry. It was an uncertain time.

So to make things a bit easier for PR students, I have put together a list of 2010 PR Graduate Schemes, when they open, close and links to apply. I’ll be updating it over the coming months. I hope you find it useful.

Note to companies: if you have a scheme please email me and I’ll add you to the list.

Band & Brown (via Facebook)
Closed

Blue Rubicon
Open: Now
Closes: 31 January 2010

Brando (via Facebook)
Closed

Chime Comms
Open: Now
Closes: 15 January 2010

Diffusion PR
Open: Now
Closes: 31 January 2010

Edelman
Open: Now
Closes: December 2009 and February 2010 depending on when you want to start.
Edelman has an intake in January and September 2010.

Fishburn Hedges
Open: Now
Closes: 11 January 2010 and 8 February 2010 depending on when you want to start.

Fleishman-Hillard
Open: Now
FH continually run a scheme which lasts 6 months and candidates may be offered a job at the end.

Four Comms
Open: Now
Closes: 30 Janury 2010

Hill & Knowlton
Open: April 2010
Closes: TBA

Hotwire
Open: Now
Closes: 25 January 2010

NHS – the scheme was recently announced in PR Week, details TBA.
Open: TBA
Closes:  TBA

Shine Comms
Open: January 2010
Closes: TBA

Weber Shandwick
Open: Now
Closes: 25 January 2010

I was checking out the findings of Edelman’s 3rd annual good purpose consumers’ survey and the findings were very interesting. The good purpose study found that 61% of people have purchased a brand that supports a good cause even if it wasn’t the cheapest brand. That means if more brands support good causes consumers are more likely purchase the brand even if that spend an extra 50 cents to a dollar just because the brand supports a good cause. Also the study showed 83% of people are willing to change consumption habits if it can help makes the world a better place to live. I think if more companies took the time out to realize that they cant just spend all their money on ads that consumers would be more loyal if the brand related more to people social values and not just writing checks to charities. People have faces checks just have names and numbers. I feel that if a brand did more to help communities that consumes their brands it would be a step toward consumers being able to trust brands again because right now its really hard to trust anything that companies are saying. The results are in the actions and seeing faces. I hope that brands continue to buy into this method if you stand for a good cause that will buy. Richard Edelman Ceo of Edelman give his opinion on the subject last Monday on fox business channel I have posted the video if you would like to catch it out. This is the link Richard Edelman on good-purpose.

Sources
Edelman’s Good-purpose press release
Fox Business Channel
For Complete Finding and more information Visit the follow links
Goodpurpose
Edelman
Fox Business

We regret to inform you of the passing of HoRav Tzvi Edelman z”l, father of Mrs. Chanie Tolchinsky. The levaya was held on Sunday. Mrs. Tolchinsky will be sitting shiva in her father’s apartment located at 1170 Ocean Parkway Apt. 2E until Friday afternoon. Further details are available on the shiva notice mailed to all our members, which can be accessed from the link below. May we only share in simchos.

Tolchinsky Shiva

By now, Twitter Lists should be available to pretty much everyone and will soon be coming to a third party app near you.

There are mixed views on Twitter lists, many say they are a good thing and help to organise your feed, and others who say they are nothing more than a popularity contest.

So what does the new feature mean for Twitter users and the way they interact with each other?

There are two strands of Twitter List Etiquette as I see it, when you’ve been added and when you’re doing the adding.

When You’ve Been Added

Being added to a list is, to me, very similar to being retweeted. It is the acknowledgement that for one reason or another, another user thinks you are adding value to a particular way in which they use Twitter. This is not to say if you’re not on any lists you’re not adding value. Some people will be on 1500 lists, some people may be on 1. It doesn’t matter.

What does matter is that you take the time to thankyou for being included and maybe even have a look through that list to see who else is on there that you might like to follow, if not following the whole list. And there is of course no need to follow that list – it’s your user experience after all.

When You’re Doing The Adding

Each user will have their own reason for creating a list, cool folks, fellow workmates etc I think it’s important that each list has a purpose. For example I’ve created a list of the Spook team at Edelman so that I can keep upto date with their latest tweets without always being glued to my feed.

You don’t need to tell people when they’ve been added – I think they’ll probably notice when their lists count has gone and i think that if you do send out 100 “hey you made my Twitter list” messages, those users that follow you and aren’t on that list will get pretty annoyed pretty quickly and unfollow.

I don’t think there is any harm in tweeting “I just created a Twitter List” with a link – I would hope that any list i made was useful and would be of interest to other Twitter users.

Keeping a list private vs. outing it in public is interesitng. If you make your list public, there are bound to be people who may think “why am I not on there”, and I think that for subjective lists, private may be the way to go whereas if a list is ‘factual’, there is no harm at all in making it public.

Personally, I will try to avoid creating “top xxx to follow” type lists – as Chris Brogan so brilliantly points out:

I realized what I’m not going to like about them: they will exclude people. Sure, on the one hand, they’re a great way to group people and information together. For instance, I might make a list for news feeds. I might make a list about travel, like hotels and airlines.

But the minute you move into the people department, things get sketchy quick.

And I tend to agree with him. There is no reason for me to alienate any followers or people I follow – Twitter is, by its nature, an inclusive service, and that is how I want my experience to remain.

This is only the beginning of Twitter Lists and the way they are used is sure to evolve, and hence so are my brief thoughts on etiquette. I hope that these initial ramblings are useful and help to contribute to the place we will get to in 6 month’s time.

Thanks to Anna Hardman, Dan Lazarides, Laurence Borel and David Noble for inspiring this post!

UPDATE: Naturally, as always I forgot someone, sorry Jacqui!!

What are your thoughts on Twitter Lists and the way they will evolve?

Proyek riset Digital Brand Index (DBI) yang pertama kali dilakukan di Asia ini bertujuan untuk memberikan wawasan dan pandangan terhadap brand yang paling dibicarakan dengan menggunakan media online.

Riset ini adalah hasil dari kerjasama antara Brandtology dan Edelman. Brandtology adalah perusahaan yang menyediakan jasa intelijen dan analisa brand online 24/7 melalui pusat command center. Sementara itu Edelman adalah perusahaan konsultan public relation terkemuka di dunia yang memiliki 51 kantor cabang di seluruh dunia, termasuk di Indonesia.

DBI dilakukan di delapan market utama di kawasan Asia Pasifik, yaitu Australia, Cina, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, dan Singapura. Dengan memberikan wawasan secara mendalam DBI memonitor merk ternama dalam kategori internet dan software, consumer electronics, mobile dan telekomunikasi, bisnis dan konsuling, dan IT teknologi.

Riset yang dilakukan selama bulan Juli sampai dengan September 2009 ini menggunakan teknologi dari Brandtology yaitu Digital Conversation Management System (DCMS).

Dengan menggunakan DCMS didapatkan hasil riset sebanyak 800,000 online mention dari 233 brand IT ternama dibicarakan di 4,348 media internet channel, seperti blog, forum, micro-blog, website, dan social networking website di Australia, Cina, Hongkong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, dan Taiwan.

Dari hasil riset ini ditemukan sebanyak 10 brand IT yang paling dibicarakan di Indonesia. Intel menduduki peringkat pertama dengan sebayak 5743 brand mention di Internet, kemudian disusul oleh AMD, Google, dan Asus.

Dari persaingan telepon genggam di Indonesia, yang mengejutkan ternyata Nokia lebih banyak dibicarakan dibanding Blackberry dengan unggul lebih dari 1000 online mention. Dan provider telepon Indosat adalah juga yang paling dibicarakan dibandingkan dengan Excelcomindo.

Channel yang paling diminati adalah Kaskus Forum. Kaskus dinilai sebagai forum yang paling aktif di Indonesia dengan sebanyak 51,783 brand dibicarakan dalam periode 3 bulan. Sementara itu Twitter menjadi favorit channel untuk membicarakan tentang suatu brand mengungguli blog-blog di Indonesia.

Dari hasil riset DBI yang didapatkan ini telah dibuktikan bahwa perusahaan diharapkan tidak menganggap enteng sosial media sebagai wadah promosi perusahaan. Jika dibandingkan dengan tradisional media, jenis media yang satu ini lebih unggul dengan flexibilitas dan kemampuan menyediakan informasi dengan cepat, instan, dan akurat.

Disamping itu sosial media memiliki pengaruh kuat bagi konsumen sebagai ‘influencers’ dalam ‘buying process’ khususnya pada saat seseorang membutuhkan keputusan untuk membeli suatu produk atau mencari informasi terhadap suatu servis. Konsumen akan mencari sosok atau faktor yang memiliki pengaruh kuat dalam menentukan keputusan yang terbaik bagi dirinya.

Sumber: DBI Press Release, Brandtology, Edelman

-APD-

Badania Edelman Trust Barometer Polska 2009

Poziom zaufania do rządu wzrósł w Polsce od zeszłego roku z 11% do 33%.  Biznesowi nadal ufa 47% respondentów. Na tle społeczeństw europejskich Polacy wykazują mniejszą przychylność do interwencjonizmu państwa w gospodarkę. Takie wyniki, w odniesieniu do Polski, przynosi dziesiąta edycja ogólnoświatowego badania Edelman Trust Barometer, które sprawdza poziom zaufania liderów opinii do firm, instytucji i mediów.

Rząd dla globalnych wyzwań

Wyniki tegorocznej edycji badania pokazują, że polscy liderzy opinii coraz bardziej ufają rządowi i chcą, by to rząd stał się liderem zmian koniecznych do rozwiązania globalnych problemów, takich jak kryzys finansowy, czy globalne ocieplenie. Jednak, poza tymi obszarami, Polacy są mniej skłonni, niż inne społeczeństwa w Europie, popierać rząd w działalności interwencyjnej i kontrolnej w sferze biznesu (44% respondentów popierających interwencje w Polsce, w porównaniu z 65% poparcia globalnie).

Biznes partnerem na trudne czasy

Poziom zaufania do świata biznesu, jako całości, w Polsce, wbrew światowym tendencjom, utrzymał się na poziomie zbliżonym do ubiegłorocznego – 47% zaufania. Jest to prawdopodobnie spowodowane opóźnieniem, z jakim odczuwamy skutki globalnego kryzysu gospodarczego. Znamienne jest, że w Polsce kryzys zaufania dotknął przede wszystkim branżę bankową, która dotychczas najbardziej ucierpiała na  zawirowaniach światowych rynków, spadek zaufania wyniósł tutaj 20% w stosunku do poziomu z poprzedniej edycji.

Wyniki badania pokazują, że aż 71% respondentów w Polsce uważa, że biznes powinien współpracować z rządem oraz organizacjami pozarządowymi w celu rozwiązania globalnych problemów, takich jak kryzys finansowy, czy globalne ocieplenie.

To był katastrofalny rok dla biznesu na całym świecie. W Polsce najtrudniejszy czas dopiero nadchodzi. Korporacje muszą na nowo przemyśleć swoją rolę w społeczeństwie i odejść od podejścia zorientowanego jedynie na generowanie zysków dla swych udziałowców. Muszą być partnerem dla rządu i innych instytucji, aby podjąć swe zobowiązania wobec społeczeństwa – powiedziała Barbara Kwiecień, Prezes i Dyrektor Generalny agencji Edelman Polska, komentując wyniki badań.

Wyniki Edelman Trust Barometer 2009 pokazują, że wiarygodność Dyrektorów Generalnych firm oraz komunikatów pochodzącym od firm jest w Polsce na rekordowo niskim poziomie. Wypowiedziom CEO firmy ufa tylko 15% badanych, to spadek o 14% w porównaniu z zeszłym rokiem. Strona internetowa firmy jest traktowana, jako godna zaufania, tylko przez 16% badanych, wynik niższy od zeszłorocznego o 25%.

Spada również zaufanie do tradycyjnych źródeł informacji.  W Polsce artykuły w prasie są traktowane, jako godne zaufania, już tylko przez 14% badanych. To spadek o 25% w porównaniu z zeszłym rokiem. Na wiarygodności tracą także serwisy telewizyjne i radiowe, którym ufa odpowiednio 14% i 10% mniej badanych niż w zeszłym roku.

Na świecie

Globalnym trendem jest postrzeganie zaufania w rankingu kluczowych cech firmy, budujących reputację przedsiębiorstwa. Zaufanie wyprzedza, pod względem ważności dla klienta, takie kwestie jak: przyszła sytuacja finansowa firmy, ilość tworzonych miejsc pracy, czy wpływ na środowisko.

Inne kluczowe wnioski badania Edelman Trust Barometer 2009 w ujęciu globalnym:

* Na całym świecie w rankingu zaufania prowadzą organizacje pozarządowe – 54% zaufania wśród badanych w skali globalnej.
* Wzrasta waga zaufania w procesie podejmowania decyzji zakupowych przez klientów – 87% badanych odmawia zakupu produktów lub usług producenta, do którego straciło zaufanie, a 79% osób ankietowanych przekazywało swym przyjaciołom i znajomym krytyczne opinie o firmie, która straciła wiarygodność w ich oczach.
* Technologia pozostaje najbardziej godnym zaufania sektorem gospodarki na świecie. Przedsiębiorstwom z tej branży ufa 76% badanych.
* Zaufanie do niemal każdego typu źródeł informacji spadło na przestrzeni roku. Analizy giełdowe lub rynku, oraz magazyny o tematyce biznesowej, które były liderami rankingów w zeszłorocznym badaniu, dziś odnotowały spadek zaufania odpowiednio z poziomu 59% do 46% oraz z 53% do 33%.

O badaniu zaufania Edelman Trust Barometer

2009 Edelman Trust Barometer jest 10 edycją ogólnoświatowego badania zaufania do firm i ich wiarygodności.  W 2008 r. badanie zostało przeprowadzone w 20 krajach na świecie, w formie 30 minutowego wywiadu telefonicznego na grupie 4 475 osób. Badanie  odbyło się w dniach 5 listopada – 14 grudnia 2008.

I cross posted this item at my new Posterous site — my latest 2.0 addiction. The event is significant enough to warrant broader coverage in the Sledzik Social Media Network. And I really need to get a life.

WalMarting Across America: Jim & Laura's Blog

Ah, the good old days.

It was Oct., 12, 2006, and my first month as a blogger when I came across this story in Business Week. It involved Jim and Laura and the fake blog called “Wal-Marting Across America.” The story became instant folklore in the 2.0 digital world of PR and marketing. I wrote about it here – three years ago yesterday.

The story caused quite blow-up in the blogosphere, not to mention great embarrassment to the blog’s creators, Edelman Public Relations. Prior to “Wal-Marting,” Edelman had been the leading proponent of social media in PR practice. And thanks to a swift response to this crisis, the firm has maintained that leadership position.

The “Wal-Marting” case is now in the ethics textbooks, and we all have a chance to learn from it. My students read about it just today.

But speaking objectively, was the case really all that high-profile? Ask anyone outside the 2.0 echo chamber about Wal-Mart’s fake blog and you’ll likely get a blank stare. Sometimes what happens here isn’t nearly as important as we think it is.

Regardless, it’s been a great case from which my students can learn the value and the importance of transparency and authenticity — two things I fear the 2.0 world will never achieve.

I was interested to see, when trawling through the press releases on Response Source, that Hotpoint, Sharp and Toshiba will be joinnig Brother, Cannon, Indesit, Kodak and Kaspersky in publishing customer reviews on their official websites, courtesy of Reevoo.

According to the press release:

With ratings and reviews now the second most important site feature behind search*, customer reviews have become a focus for manufacturers. Reviews boost conversion rates on average by 10 per cent** while engaging customers and building brand loyalty.

Presented with the opportunity to significantly increase online sales, manufacturers still face the challenge of providing an adequate volume of user-generated content to accompany their product data. Recent cases of astroturfing and the posting of fake reviews have also highlighted the need for better control over the provenance and impartiality of customer reviews.

The idea behind this is one step on from the usual PR trick of using clichéd journalist reviews to try and induce consumers into buying a product.

According to the Edelman Trust Barometer (I work for Edelman, if you didn’t know that, check out About Me) consumer trust in business is at a lowly 38%, and the word of ‘people like me’ is just as important as that of a seasoned hack.

So to incorporate unmoderated reviews into a main site, the first port of call for an inquisitive consumer, is quite a step forward.

The next step of course is to aggregate all user comments across different social media platforms into one source viewable on their homepages, totally unmoderated. Will we see this soon? Maybe not, but large companies are very slowly coming round to the notion that the consumer is not just always right, but also important in influencing the purchasing decisions of fellow consumers.

I was on a lunch panel at the recent Social Media for Healthcare Communicators summit at the Mayo Clinic. The concept was 30 ideas in 30 minutes and we went rapid fire with a panel that included Lee Aase, Shel Holtz, Heather Harper of Edelman and more. I thought I would post my top 5 tips here for you as an addition to the slide show I posted teh otehr day!
1. Engage all teams and filter concerns and suggestions prior to starting your Social Media efforts. This will reduce push back and allow you to think more strategically about how Social Media can be put to use for your organization.
2. Focus on 1 or 2 channels at first, just on those you will be able to pay attention to. Don’t open a store if you aren’t going to be open for business!
3. Share the wealth; show your support for other like organizations (even your competitor) to build trust and respect as a true industry leader. This also gives you credibility with clients/customers/patients and shows you are not using these channels for sales and pr alone.
4. Engage outside help; don’t feel like you have to be the lone ranger in Social Media for your organization. Engage people who are natural to the medium such as volunteers, receptionists etc to handle day to day basic communication. This frees you up to do the creative strategy to use the channels to reach your desired goals.
5. THINK MOBILE! Mobile is the natural evolution of the personal computer; as you begin to embark on social media, include researching and incorporating mobile so that you are ahead of the curve! (shameless plug www.mobilematters.org can help!